On 19.11.2013 14:48, Peter Lieven wrote:
On 18.11.2013 17:27, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Nov 18, 2013 12:20 AM, "Peter Lieven" mailto:p...@kamp.de>>
wrote:
>
> vnc_update_client currently scans the dirty bitmap of each client
> bitwise which is a very costly operation if only few bits are dirt
On 18.11.2013 17:27, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Nov 18, 2013 12:20 AM, "Peter Lieven" mailto:p...@kamp.de>>
wrote:
>
> vnc_update_client currently scans the dirty bitmap of each client
> bitwise which is a very costly operation if only few bits are dirty.
> vnc_refresh_server_surface does almos
Am 18.11.2013 17:27, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2013 12:20 AM, "Peter Lieven" mailto:p...@kamp.de>>
> wrote:
> >
> > vnc_update_client currently scans the dirty bitmap of each client
> > bitwise which is a very costly operation if only few bits are dirty.
> > vnc_refresh_server_surf
On Nov 18, 2013 12:20 AM, "Peter Lieven" wrote:
>
> vnc_update_client currently scans the dirty bitmap of each client
> bitwise which is a very costly operation if only few bits are dirty.
> vnc_refresh_server_surface does almost the same.
> this patch optimizes both by utilizing the heavily optim
vnc_update_client currently scans the dirty bitmap of each client
bitwise which is a very costly operation if only few bits are dirty.
vnc_refresh_server_surface does almost the same.
this patch optimizes both by utilizing the heavily optimized
function find_next_bit to find the offset of the next
